Oregon Education Association Fraud

Oregon public education labor/management conflicts-of-interest:
A teacher who paid OEA dues for ten years came into conflict with bureaucratic veterans who were not accountable.
The following documents (all accurate and authentic representations) illustrate how public school administrators in Oregon are able to hire lawyers with state gov't connections to avoid accountability for misconduct.

A Need for Change...

Denying Employees Due-Process: Linda Borquist

/Users/Don/Desktop/197608_191070074261611_1042088_n.jpg
June 2004 FDAB testimony of Linda Borquist, then-Associate Superintendent for Human Resources of Beaverton Schools, on her "unique" collaboration with Tom Husted, uniserve representative for the Beaverton Education Association. Husted was serving concurrently on the board of the Beaverton Education Foundation, a non-profit run by JANET HOGUE, a Westview parent with an office in the Beaverton HR building.BORQUIST'S SWORN TESTIMONY JUNE 2004:Q. Do you have contact with the Beaverton Education Association as you work with various personnel problems?
A(Borquist). Uh-huh. I think we probably are a little bit unique in how we work with our association. The person who is the administrator of certificated personnel, which is a job I have also held in the past, and I meet usually twice a month and go over any kind of what we call "issues sessions." We look at, you know, things that have been brought to either of our attentions, and we go through and have an open discussion about what we're hearing or seeing. The hope is that we would, again, resolve it at the smallest level. We are very frank with each other. We don't really hold any secrets or hold any information back. But we try to proactively work together. We've operated
that
(begin pg 47)
way for at least 12, maybe 15 years, ever since I can kind of remember with, you know, past association presidents. It is a culture that we have built. Because of that we have very, very few grievances. I can maybe think of three in my ten years in -- 12 years in HR. You know, I've never sat before this kind of a board before with a Fair Dismissal hearing. We're actively working together. Obviously they have a role of representing in this case a teacher, and we have a role that we need to play. But
we try and work cooperatively. When I have a meeting that I'm going to be setting up with a teacher, I give what I would call a heads-up phone call to the association president or the Uniserv rep saying that this person will be expecting a call from X because they'll probably be calling you. We're going to have a meeting. I want to make sure you're available when they call so they can have representation. That's how open our relationship is.
/Users/Don/Desktop/197608_191070074261611_1042088_n.jpg
Q. You mentioned that you had these meetings generally twice a month. Who are those with?
A. It's my administrator for certificated personnel, the Uniserv rep and the BEA president.

> Don....I received your emails. Sorry, I didn't respond earlier but I
have been out of the country. Don't look for me in Central Oregon. I
am half a world away. I don't live the kind of life that you think I
do, the car you refer to is long gone and never was a part of me. I
rarely do work for leslieconsulting and it is usually things I can do
from a distance such as editing work. After 31 years in the public, I
just don't enjoy it anymore.
I will be in the state and in Portland from Sept 23-29, at least that is
what I am firming up with family. I can meet with you during that time
and would welcome a direct meeting with you. I have no ill will against
you, never did. Sometimes some awful duties and assignments came with my
former job. They were not of my making.
Anyway, I hope we can meet. If you let me know soon when you are
available, I'll work around other plans. What place would be convenient
for you?

Sincerely...Linda

The Testimony of Linda Borquist, former associate superintendent of Beaverton, Oregon public schools, once in charge of hiring and overseeing THOUSANDS of public employees, many of them highly-trained professional educators.

Q. Ms. Borquist, I'd like you to take a look at the dismissal notice itself, Exhibit D-1 there in the white binder. Let me ask you this: Did the district attempt to terminate Mr. Bellairs in 1999 for the incident that happened in 1999 relating to Ms. Lass and the parent,
Mr. Williams?
A. No.
Q. Did the district attempt to terminate Mr. Bellairs in February of 2003 for the confrontation
with Mr. Ali?
A. No.
Q. Did the district attempt to terminate Mr. Bellairs in May or June of 2003?
A. No.
Q. And how about October of 2003?
A. No.
Q. How about December of 2003?
A. I'm trying to think of where -- what was the incident? Oh, the sexual harassment complaint. No.
Q. At what point did the district make a decision that Mr. Bellairs' actions merited -- constituted
neglect of duty?
A. Probably a compilation of all those things and the rapid succession in which they were happening. We had had many conferences by then. We were putting things
directly -- putting things in his personnel file. We were putting them in writing. We were telling him that we were going -- that this was all going to lead to dismissal. We put that twice in two letters, and I met with him on the 16th of October and told him. Then we had the sexual
harassment complaint at the end of January. It was looking at how many times does a
person have to be told. That's when we kind of all were shaking our heads and putting the information together and saying, "My gosh. Look at all the instances. We have told him that the next thing is going to be dismissal. It is time the pull the plug." So we had the meeting on the 26th to give any airing of any other information that we might need to know about before we made that decision, and then
we made the decision.
Q. Okay. So I know notice in the dismissal notice it says that each of these actions constitutes neglect of duty: the '99, the 2003 --
A. Uh-huh.
Q. So is it only by virtue of the fact that all of these incidents together -- is it the fact of all of the
incidents together that merits discipline -- termination, I should say?
A. Yes.
Q. The 1998 incident -- 1999 incident, I should say, that doesn't merit termination; correct?
A. It could have, I suppose. In retrospect, you know, I wish we would have taken other action at that point, when we look at how many times a person was told and how many times they weren't a learner. But it was our hope that Mr. Bellairs would learn. He had some good teaching qualities. He was in a high need area. Media and production are high need areas of expertise. I
think all of his administrators really hoped that he would take heed and note and conform to the standards. In retrospect, I could look at any of the incidents in and of themselves and think there was a neglect of duty.
Q. And that merits termination?
A. Possibly. I wish -- you know, when I look back and I look at probationary years, there were certainly some things that were red flags in the probationary years. But I guess that the administrator really wanted to give Don a continuing chance, and we thought that the behaviors
were correctable.
Q. Okay. So, once again, I'm just going back to the notice. It sounds like you're saying that this
notice is based upon all of these incidents?
A. Uh-huh. That's why we put them all in the letter together.
Q. But that the district would terminate based on each individual one also if --
A. I didn't say that. I said, you know, in retrospect we possibly could have. But, again, our
stance is to always give as much direction and opportunity to grow and learn as a learning institution that we possibly
can. This was just too many times.
Q. Would your recommendation have been the same if there was just the one incident on January 14th with the superintendent?
A. The January 14th with the superintendent was really nonconsequential to our decision. Those staff conversations I think -- I'm getting kind of confused about what was said earlier. But I think we talked about that that was a time when it's open conversation. It was only because it was a direct violation of the October 16th memo or directive that Mike Chamberlain
had given that it became an issue. It wasn't what he said so much as how he chose to hang on to this particular family and continue to portray them, when he was told by Mike that if he had any issues of concern about kids or families or anything else, to talk to his supervisor.
Q. So it wasn't, you're saying, what he said, but how he said it?
A. No. I mean, actually, it was what he said in terms of the particular family.
Q. So it was what he said?
A. But it wasn't, because the staff conversation does allow for that. We had another very outspoken person who said a lot more than Don. He received absolutely no reprimand for that piece. But he didn't have a directive in his file that directed him not to do that kind of stuff.
Q. So Don could have said what he said with no repercussions but for the fact that he had been
directed not to say that?
A. Correct.
Q. It wasn't how he was saying it, but it was the fact that he was saying something about a parent or student; and the fact he was saying something about a parent or student is what you regard as being in violation of the directive?
A. Yes.
Q. I believe you testified that that incident overall would not have formed the basis for termination all on its own?
A. No. It would not.
Q. Okay. Now, by that incident I'm talking about -- you have what you say is a letter of directive from October, and then whatever happened in January, on January 14th at that meeting, that's what I'm referring to. If all that was the same, and he said the same
exact thing, and he had that alleged directive, the district would not have taken any disciplinary action?
A. If everything else was great, he had no other problems, we hadn't talked to him before, he had no other directives in his file, no other instances, no, we would not have taken action for dismissal.
Q. All right. So, in fact, that incident doesn't form the basis for the termination decision? Isn't
that what you're telling me?
A. Not solely by itself it does not.
Q. Not even as part of the larger picture?
A. As part of the larger picture, certainly, or we wouldn't have included all these. Everything that we put in the dismissal letter is a piece of the dismissal.
Q. Okay. Yet that incident does not even merit discipline is what you're telling me?
A. Not -- you asked me if it warranted dismissal. That is how I understood it. This incident by itself with no other incidents attached to it, I would say that it does not. But in a series of things, what I referred to before as bites of the apple, it certainly does.
Q. Okay. So the district's -- I hope I'm not misunderstanding. Please correct me if I am.
A. I will.
Q. But the district is saying that the incident that happened on January 14th would have merited discipline, but not termination?
A. If it was isolated in and of itself, which, you know, I don't have a basis of reference for, because, you know, I don't know how I would have looked at it. But the fact is that we had a series of same types of behavior. That's why it got our attention. That's why he had a directive in his file not to do it. So, you know, in and of itself -- you're trying to ask me to separate something as a singular incident outside of this whole series. I'm not too sure I can do that.
Q. I think that it's -- I don't think it's unreasonable to ask if the allegations against
Mr. Bellairs, that allegation -- there's several in this notice -- if that one is considered to merit discipline by the district or not, and I'm not sure what you're telling me.
MS. LINDA HUNGERFORD: I'm going to object. I think the question has been asked and answered. I think that this witness has said that this incident alone wouldn't have been the basis for dismissal, which was the question. And she said that she doesn't know whether it would have been the basis for any discipline in the absence of all of these other surrounding facts. I really believe we're spinning our wheels here in terms of how many times we have gone over the same ground.
MR. DOYLE: I have not -- Ms. Hungerford testified very eloquently. I've not heard this witness tell me if it's -- if this is -- if this action, if this activity on January 14th, would have resulted in any discipline if it had just been this incident.
MS. LINDA HUNGERFORD: I think she said she didn't know.
MR. DOYLE: May I rephrase the question?
MR. SMITH: Rephrase the question. Yes, please.
BY MR. DOYLE:
Q. Would you consider what Mr. Bellairs did on January 14th all by itself to be a violation of the district policies?
A. In terms of his being directed, I would consider it a violation.
Q. Okay. Now, if you have a teacher violating district policies, would you discipline that teacher?
A. Probably we would have a conversation with the person. Our intent is to not hammer somebody and take them to the highest level when you mention discipline for this incident and dismissal for this incident. We would probably take that person aside, bring them in and say, "You know, what you said during that meeting was inappropriate, because what I had asked you to do was to do this. Now, do you understand again what I mean by that?" In all honestly, that's probably what we would have done if it were the only time that we had talked to that individual.
Q. I think you've testified before that being sat down with and told what to do and told don't do that again is disciplinary. I think that's your testimony from before. That sounds like a disciplinary -- that you're saying, yes, there would be --
MS. LINDA HUNGERFORD: I'm going to object. I don't think that was her testimony.
THE WITNESS: It was not.
BY MR. DOYLE:
Q. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Is that a disciplinary -- would that be grievable? Is that discipline?
A. Is what discipline?
Q. What you just said you would do in response to Mr. Bellairs' actions on January 14.
MR. SMITH: Hold up here for a minute. We have an objection. Do you want to rephrase the question and I'll give Ms. Hungerford a chance to object to the new
rephrase?
BY MR. DOYLE:
Q. On January 14, 2004, Mr. Bellairs engaged in some conduct that I believe you've testified the district regarded as a violation of its policies; is that correct?
A. No. What I testified to is that in this incident, with his directive in his October 16th letter that directed him not to talk about those kinds of things in the manner that he did, that's what he violated. He did not violate anything by speaking out against what he perceived were some -- whatever things he wanted to say about the district. That isn't a violation. What it was a violation of was that directive in the letter of October 16th.
Q. Okay. And violating the directive is against district policy; isn't that right?
A. It is.
Q. Okay. So I'm trying just to make sure I understand, and I think this is a reasonable question. Your counsel will tell me if it's not. Did you regard Mr. Bellairs' actions on January 14, 2004, as being in violation of the district policy? Now, I understand there's a policy that requires following directives. I include that policy when I say in violation of district policy.
Q. Okay. Would your recommendation have been the same, i.e. termination, if the January 14th
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. I'll ask the same question in regard to the Jennifer Jordan notes. Everything else being the same, would you have taken -- everything else falling away, if it was just the allegations of Ms. Jordan, would you have taken the same action to recommend termination?
A. Probably not. It was a series, as I've stated many times. It was the whole series in the dismissal letter, otherwise we would have just taken one incident and made it pretty simple. It was the bites of the apple, the number of times of the same kinds of behavior that we were addressing.
Q. Okay. Would you have recommended any sort of discipline based upon the allegation and the investigation done by the district in regard to the Jennifer Jordan notes?
MS. LINDA HUNGERFORD: Standing alone?
BY MR. DOYLE:
Q. Standing alone.
A. Well, since Mr. Bellairs or you did not give us anything else to look at in terms of that allegation, we probably would have done more talking to other witnesses or other kinds of things that we might have been able to ferret out. If we're going to go forward with a dismissal, since I've never in my 12 years sat around a table like this, we're going to make darn sure our dismissal can stand and that we have our evidences (sic) lined up. So you're asking me to conjecture about one incident, would we have looked further. You know, we didn't look any further in that particular one incident because we had a whole series of incidents we'd already in the file. We already thought we addressed it. When we got down to the last items, it was just more of the same. So when I looked at the totality of it since the 1998-99 school year, when I looked at the totality of how many times has this teacher been told to change his behavior, that's what made me have the determination that this was a dismissal, that absolute defiance of what we had put in writing and told him and I had personally told him was going to be the next step.
Q. So I believe you've testified that if it was just standing alone, the allegations by Jennifer Jordan, you probably would have done more investigation and then would have determined whether some sort of discipline was warranted?
A. Well, you know, conjecturing about a sexual harassment thing really is difficult, as you know if you've worked with them before. Since it didn't happen, I don't really feel that I would like to sit here and conjecture what I might have done or should have done or something when that isn't what my judgment was based on. My judgment was based on the series. And to pull out one incident and say would you have done, should you have done, that's conjecturing on my part. I always try to look at trying to be ethical and factual and make sure that I'm addressing the situation that I have before me. I don't try to conjecture or make up things or think about other be related. I had enough evidences (sic), as I've stated in this dismissal letter, that I had no choice but to move forward to dismissal because he certainly wasn't getting the picture. So to pull this apart as an individual case and conjecture about what I would do, I just don't think that's a fair question that I can answer.
Q. But I believe you've actually already said that each of these incidents would merit some -- could potentially merit termination?
A. No. I said it could warrant dismissal, not -- I'm sorry. It could warrant discipline.
Q. But not termination?
A. Not in and of themselves necessarily.
Q. Okay.
A. I don't think -- I think I keep getting twisted around in my testimony.
Q. So the testimony now is that each of these incidents separated out would not warrant termination; it's only by the fact that they're combined together in this series, you called bites of the apple, that you're recommending termination?
A. You're asking me to conjecture about each of these in and of itself when it wasn't in and of itself. My recommendation for dismissal to the superintendent was based on all of these incidents. As you can see, we didn't discipline -- we didn't terminate on each of these as they happened. We didn't do it. But we did when we looked at a whole and how many times he had been told. That's the fact. I'm conjecturing if you want me to take it apart piece by piece, because that isn't life and that isn't what happened.
MR. SMITH: I think we're kind of stuck in a rut here.
MR. DOYLE: We'll move on.
MR. SMITH: Okay.
BY MR. DOYLE:
Q. I just want to ask about your investigation. You made a comment that you probably should have done more investigation or would have done --
A. If it was singular.
Q. -- into the Jordan allegation.
A. If it was a standalone and that's what I was going to base my termination on, that one incident
only, and you both sat there and gave us nothing else to investigate, I probably would have looked -- if I was going to sit here and defend it, I probably would have looked a little bit more if it was the only incident that I was bringing forward on termination.
Q. For instance, talking to the witness that Ms. Jordan mentioned in her statement?
A. I believe that was done.
Q. Can you point to me in the October 2003 letter what directive Mr. Bellairs violated on January 14, 2004?
MR. SMITH: Do you have the exhibit number?
MR. DOYLE: I will get to the exhibit number. I was stalling. D-18.
THE WITNESS: Bottom of page 2: "You are officially instructed, Donald, to comply with Standards 2.2 c., 2.3 a. and e., and 3.2 e. and f. For standard 3.2f. you are instructed to first communicate with me any concerns you have with staff and/or parents so that letters or e-mails are appropriate. In addition you are instructed to see your immediate supervisor, Mike Chamberlain, when you have a potential conflict with a staff member or parent."
BY MR. DOYLE:
Q. Okay. You say he violated what part of that statement?
A. Specifically the last part, the potential conflict with the parent. Mrs. Hogue was a parent. Mr. Hogue was a parent.
Q. So there's three sentences there. The second sentence says for Standard 3.2 f., and that looks like it relates to letters or e-mails. You don't allege that on January 14, 2004, Mr. Bellairs sent a letter or e-mail that violated this order, do you?
A. No. Not that I'm aware of.
Q. So it's the next sentence: You are instructed to first see your immediate supervisor when you have potential conflict with a staff member or parent?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. What is a potential conflict?
A. Something that you disagree with that they've done that you're going to spout off about or display publicly or talk about in a derogatory fashion.
Q. So a potential conflict to you includes saying something about a parent -- sorry -- saying something about that -- I guess mentioning a student in general or saying something derogatory about a student?
A. Well, in this particular case it is that there was a picture, I understand, in the newspaper with this particular student, and it was insinuated that this student only got the part in the play because of her parents' influence and support of the school district. Then there's some offhanded comment that was, Well, maybe she deserved it, maybe she got it anyway, or something like that. But it was a direct derogatory comment about a family and that their family somehow got it through other than the merits of the daughter.
Q. You consider that to be a conflict with a parent?
A. I sure would if my family were portrayed in that manner that they were getting special treatment because of something that I did.
Q. Were there any parents at this meeting? I mean other than people who are faculty and also parents.
A. Not that I'm aware of.
Q. Okay. So I believe there are some notes on Exhibit D-21 from that faculty meeting. Now, I assume it was based upon these notes that you have an
understanding
of what was said?
A. No. Actually, I talked to Mike Chamberlain.
Q. You weren't actually at the faculty meeting?
A. I was not.
Q. Did you review these notes in addition to talking with Mr. Chamberlain?
A. Yes.
Q. Is the statement that you believe violated that directive written down here on these notes?
A. (Reviewing document.) It's the last statement. Well, it's actually the last couple statements. Kaitlyn Hogue, which is a student -- was a student at the school. And who knows, she may have -- it's in quotes what Don said was, "And who knows, she may have deserved the part in the fall play," which insinuated she may have gotten it by other means other than by her own actions. And then the, "Clearly making a connection to Mr. Hogue speaking to the faculty about fundraising, his wife as president of BEF, the equity concern regarding where dollars raised
go, and their daughter getting a lead in the fall play."
Q. Okay. Now, I see one statement there that's in quotes: "And who knows, she may have deserved the part in the fall play." That's the only quote in here; right? It looks like it's Mr. Chamberlains thoughts on what was --
A. I think it's an accurate reflection of what he heard.
Q. Did Mr. Chamberlain relay to you any other quotes or anything like that of what Mr. Bellairs said that you regard as a violation of the October directive?
A. Not in terms of quotes. He relayed what he said, but did not put anything in quotes other than that one thing.
Q. What else did Mr. Chamberlain tell you besides what's in these notes?
A. Basically these notes.
Q. Okay. So there's nothing else Mr. Chamberlain told you that you based your termination recommendation on than what's in these notes?
A. And the fact -- the reminder that he had talked to Mr. Bellairs specifically, and I have talked to Mr. Bellairs specifically about letting the Hogue stuff rest. That was October 17th. That was right after the October 16th letter. So both of us had talked to him specifically about the Hogues and specifically about not defaming kids in a public meeting or in a public forum or any kind of forum.
Q. Okay. So, once again, I'm just trying to make sure that I understand that the only statement --verbatim statement that you know of that Mr. Bellairs actually said is, "And who knows, she may have deserved the part in the fall play"?
A. The only verbatim, but certainly relaying the conversation that was -- this other information that was shared.
Q. Mr. Chamberlain gave you the gist?
A. It was more than the gist. I mean, he relayed the conversation to me. The only -- there's a
difference between a quote -- if I put down a quote, I'm saying absolutely exactly what the person said.
Q. To make sure it's accurate?
A. Well, and then I may have information that I relay about a conversation that is going to be absolutely 100 percent accurate, but I may not put it in that person's exact words. There is a difference between a quote and being relayed in the conversation. To me a quote is exactly what the person said. Relaying the conversation would be accurate information, but it's not done with the exact same language that the person used.
Q. So it's important -- I assume that the exact language -- it sounds like this was a statement that you regarded as having a lot of implication, that he was -- Mr. Chamberlain was making a connection, clearly making a connection between the equity concerns and the part in the school play. That takes a certain amount of interpretation. It might be obvious to Mr. Chamberlain, but it's not clear from what's written down in terms of the quote. So are you relying upon Mr. Chamberlain's understanding of what Mr. Bellairs said to recommend your termination?
A. No. I mean, not -- again, you're trying to isolate a sole, little tiny piece of the whole puzzle. This was certainly one of many, many, many things that we talked about in terms of the termination. In this particular incident I listened very carefully to what Mr. Chamberlain relayed to Ms. Lekas and myself about what took place on January 14th. So, you know, I am relying on his very honest and accurate information of what went on in the meeting.
Q. Do you remember anything about the superintendent expressing any concerns to you about what Mr. Bellairs said in that meeting?
A. No. In fact, he was pretty oblivious to who Mr. Bellairs was. I had no conversation with Mr. Colonna about this until we got ready for the dismissal. He did not come back and share any concerns he had because, like he said, there were people that were very vocal. We invite that. We want our employees to feel an open, free relationship with us, to tell us things. So this was only because it was a violation of the October 16th memo.
Q. Okay. And so Superintendent Colonna didn't see anything -- didn't find Mr. Bellairs' comments inappropriate?
A. I don't know. I haven't asked him that question.
Q. Do you know of anyone that found Mr. Bellairs' comments inappropriate on January 14th?
A. Yes.
Q. Inappropriate because they're violating the directive or inappropriate because they're just inappropriate?
A. Inappropriate for violating the directive.
Q. So no one actually found them inappropriate that was there that didn't know about the directive?
A. I don't know. Nobody said anything to me. That didn't mean people wouldn't think it was inappropriate.
Q. No one that you know?
A. No one came and told me.
Q. No one you know of. You haven't been told about anyone that found the comments inappropriate that didn't already know about this directive?
A. Nobody came and reported that Mr. Bellairs said anything that was egregious and what was the district going to do about it. No.
Q. Did you hear about any other teachers who made comments about students and parents during this same faculty meeting?
A. Not individual people.
Q. So you didn't hear that others teachers also made comments about specific students and parents?
A. I'm not aware that anybody made any specific comments about specific kids or students. There was a teacher that was quite vocal about getting more funding for our ESL population.

Q. Ms. Borquist, I'd like you to take a look at the dismissal notice itself, Exhibit D-1 there in the white binder. Let me ask you this: Did the district attempt to terminate Mr. Bellairs in 1999 for the incident that happened in 1999 relating to Ms. Lass and the parent,
Mr. Williams?
A. No.
Q. Did the district attempt to terminate Mr. Bellairs in February of 2003 for the confrontation
with Mr. Ali?
A. No.
Q. Did the district attempt to terminate Mr. Bellairs in May or June of 2003?
A. No.
Q. And how about October of 2003?
A. No.
Q. How about December of 2003?
A. I'm trying to think of where -- what was the incident? Oh, the sexual harassment complaint. No.
Q. At what point did the district make a decision that Mr. Bellairs' actions merited -- constituted
neglect of duty?
A. Probably a compilation of all those things and the rapid succession in which they were happening. We had had many conferences by then. We were putting things
directly -- putting things in his personnel file. We were putting them in writing. We were telling him that we were going -- that this was all going to lead to dismissal. We put that twice in two letters, and I met with him on the 16th of October and told him. Then we had the sexual
harassment complaint at the end of January. It was looking at how many times does a
person have to be told. That's when we kind of all were shaking our heads and putting the information together and saying, "My gosh. Look at all the instances. We have told him that the next thing is going to be dismissal. It is time the pull the plug." So we had the meeting on the 26th to give any airing of any other information that we might need to know about before we made that decision, and then
we made the decision.
Q. Okay. So I know notice in the dismissal notice it says that each of these actions constitutes neglect of duty: the '99, the 2003 --
A. Uh-huh.
Q. So is it only by virtue of the fact that all of these incidents together -- is it the fact of all of the
incidents together that merits discipline -- termination, I should say?
A. Yes.
Q. The 1998 incident -- 1999 incident, I should say, that doesn't merit termination; correct?
A. It could have, I suppose. In retrospect, you know, I wish we would have taken other action at that point, when we look at how many times a person was told and how many times they weren't a learner. But it was our hope that Mr. Bellairs would learn. He had some good teaching qualities. He was in a high need area. Media and production are high need areas of expertise. I
think all of his administrators really hoped that he would take heed and note and conform to the standards. In retrospect, I could look at any of the incidents in and of themselves and think there was a neglect of duty.
Q. And that merits termination?
A. Possibly. I wish -- you know, when I look back and I look at probationary years, there were certainly some things that were red flags in the probationary years. But I guess that the administrator really wanted to give Don a continuing chance, and we thought that the behaviors
were correctable.
Q. Okay. So, once again, I'm just going back to the notice. It sounds like you're saying that this
notice is based upon all of these incidents?
A. Uh-huh. That's why we put them all in the letter together.
Q. But that the district would terminate based on each individual one also if --
A. I didn't say that. I said, you know, in retrospect we possibly could have. But, again, our
stance is to always give as much direction and opportunity to grow and learn as a learning institution that we possibly
can. This was just too many times.
Q. Would your recommendation have been the same if there was just the one incident on January 14th with the superintendent?
A. The January 14th with the superintendent was really nonconsequential to our decision. Those staff conversations I think -- I'm getting kind of confused about what was said earlier. But I think we talked about that that was a time when it's open conversation. It was only because it was a direct violation of the October 16th memo or directive that Mike Chamberlain
had given that it became an issue. It wasn't what he said so much as how he chose to hang on to this particular family and continue to portray them, when he was told by Mike that if he had any issues of concern about kids or families or anything else, to talk to his supervisor.
Q. So it wasn't, you're saying, what he said, but how he said it?
A. No. I mean, actually, it was what he said in terms of the particular family.
Q. So it was what he said?
A. But it wasn't, because the staff conversation does allow for that. We had another very outspoken person who said a lot more than Don. He received absolutely no reprimand for that piece. But he didn't have a directive in his file that directed him not to do that kind of stuff.
Q. So Don could have said what he said with no repercussions but for the fact that he had been
directed not to say that?
A. Correct.
Q. It wasn't how he was saying it, but it was the fact that he was saying something about a parent or student; and the fact he was saying something about a parent or student is what you regard as being in violation of the directive?
A. Yes.
Q. I believe you testified that that incident overall would not have formed the basis for termination all on its own?
A. No. It would not.
Q. Okay. Now, by that incident I'm talking about -- you have what you say is a letter of directive from October, and then whatever happened in January, on January 14th at that meeting, that's what I'm referring to. If all that was the same, and he said the same
exact thing, and he had that alleged directive, the district would not have taken any disciplinary action?
A. If everything else was great, he had no other problems, we hadn't talked to him before, he had no other directives in his file, no other instances, no, we would not have taken action for dismissal.
Q. All right. So, in fact, that incident doesn't form the basis for the termination decision? Isn't
that what you're telling me?
A. Not solely by itself it does not.
Q. Not even as part of the larger picture?
A. As part of the larger picture, certainly, or we wouldn't have included all these. Everything that we put in the dismissal letter is a piece of the dismissal.
Q. Okay. Yet that incident does not even merit discipline is what you're telling me?
A. Not -- you asked me if it warranted dismissal. That is how I understood it. This incident by itself with no other incidents attached to it, I would say that it does not. But in a series of things, what I referred to before as bites of the apple, it certainly does.
Q. Okay. So the district's -- I hope I'm not misunderstanding. Please correct me if I am.
A. I will.
Q. But the district is saying that the incident that happened on January 14th would have merited discipline, but not termination?
A. If it was isolated in and of itself, which, you know, I don't have a basis of reference for, because, you know, I don't know how I would have looked at it. But the fact is that we had a series of same types of behavior. That's why it got our attention. That's why he had a directive in his file not to do it. So, you know, in and of itself -- you're trying to ask me to separate something as a singular incident outside of this whole series. I'm not too sure I can do that.
Q. I think that it's -- I don't think it's unreasonable to ask if the allegations against
Mr. Bellairs, that allegation -- there's several in this notice -- if that one is considered to merit discipline by the district or not, and I'm not sure what you're telling me.
MS. LINDA HUNGERFORD: I'm going to object. I think the question has been asked and answered. I think that this witness has said that this incident alone wouldn't have been the basis for dismissal, which was the question. And she said that she doesn't know whether it would have been the basis for any discipline in the absence of all of these other surrounding facts. I really believe we're spinning our wheels here in terms of how many times we have gone over the same ground.
MR. DOYLE: I have not -- Ms. Hungerford testified very eloquently. I've not heard this witness tell me if it's -- if this is -- if this action, if this activity on January 14th, would have resulted in any discipline if it had just been this incident.
MS. LINDA HUNGERFORD: I think she said she didn't know.
MR. DOYLE: May I rephrase the question?
MR. SMITH: Rephrase the question. Yes, please.
BY MR. DOYLE:
Q. Would you consider what Mr. Bellairs did on January 14th all by itself to be a violation of the district policies?
A. In terms of his being directed, I would consider it a violation.
Q. Okay. Now, if you have a teacher violating district policies, would you discipline that teacher?
A. Probably we would have a conversation with the person. Our intent is to not hammer somebody and take them to the highest level when you mention discipline for this incident and dismissal for this incident. We would probably take that person aside, bring them in and say, "You know, what you said during that meeting was inappropriate, because what I had asked you to do was to do this. Now, do you understand again what I mean by that?" In all honestly, that's probably what we would have done if it were the only time that we had talked to that individual.
Q. I think you've testified before that being sat down with and told what to do and told don't do that again is disciplinary. I think that's your testimony from before. That sounds like a disciplinary -- that you're saying, yes, there would be --
MS. LINDA HUNGERFORD: I'm going to object. I don't think that was her testimony.
THE WITNESS: It was not.
BY MR. DOYLE:
Q. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Is that a disciplinary -- would that be grievable? Is that discipline?
A. Is what discipline?
Q. What you just said you would do in response to Mr. Bellairs' actions on January 14.
MR. SMITH: Hold up here for a minute. We have an objection. Do you want to rephrase the question and I'll give Ms. Hungerford a chance to object to the new
rephrase?
BY MR. DOYLE:
Q. On January 14, 2004, Mr. Bellairs engaged in some conduct that I believe you've testified the district regarded as a violation of its policies; is that correct?
A. No. What I testified to is that in this incident, with his directive in his October 16th letter that directed him not to talk about those kinds of things in the manner that he did, that's what he violated. He did not violate anything by speaking out against what he perceived were some -- whatever things he wanted to say about the district. That isn't a violation. What it was a violation of was that directive in the letter of October 16th.
Q. Okay. And violating the directive is against district policy; isn't that right?
A. It is.
Q. Okay. So I'm trying just to make sure I understand, and I think this is a reasonable question. Your counsel will tell me if it's not. Did you regard Mr. Bellairs' actions on January 14, 2004, as being in violation of the district policy? Now, I understand there's a policy that requires following directives. I include that policy when I say in violation of district policy.
Q. Okay. Would your recommendation have been the same, i.e. termination, if the January 14th
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. I'll ask the same question in regard to the Jennifer Jordan notes. Everything else being the same, would you have taken -- everything else falling away, if it was just the allegations of Ms. Jordan, would you have taken the same action to recommend termination?
A. Probably not. It was a series, as I've stated many times. It was the whole series in the dismissal letter, otherwise we would have just taken one incident and made it pretty simple. It was the bites of the apple, the number of times of the same kinds of behavior that we were addressing.
Q. Okay. Would you have recommended any sort of discipline based upon the allegation and the investigation done by the district in regard to the Jennifer Jordan notes?
MS. LINDA HUNGERFORD: Standing alone?
BY MR. DOYLE:
Q. Standing alone.
A. Well, since Mr. Bellairs or you did not give us anything else to look at in terms of that allegation, we probably would have done more talking to other witnesses or other kinds of things that we might have been able to ferret out. If we're going to go forward with a dismissal, since I've never in my 12 years sat around a table like this, we're going to make darn sure our dismissal can stand and that we have our evidences (sic) lined up. So you're asking me to conjecture about one incident, would we have looked further. You know, we didn't look any further in that particular one incident because we had a whole series of incidents we'd already in the file. We already thought we addressed it. When we got down to the last items, it was just more of the same. So when I looked at the totality of it since the 1998-99 school year, when I looked at the totality of how many times has this teacher been told to change his behavior, that's what made me have the determination that this was a dismissal, that absolute defiance of what we had put in writing and told him and I had personally told him was going to be the next step.
Q. So I believe you've testified that if it was just standing alone, the allegations by Jennifer Jordan, you probably would have done more investigation and then would have determined whether some sort of discipline was warranted?
A. Well, you know, conjecturing about a sexual harassment thing really is difficult, as you know if you've worked with them before. Since it didn't happen, I don't really feel that I would like to sit here and conjecture what I might have done or should have done or something when that isn't what my judgment was based on. My judgment was based on the series. And to pull out one incident and say would you have done, should you have done, that's conjecturing on my part. I always try to look at trying to be ethical and factual and make sure that I'm addressing the situation that I have before me. I don't try to conjecture or make up things or think about other be related. I had enough evidences (sic), as I've stated in this dismissal letter, that I had no choice but to move forward to dismissal because he certainly wasn't getting the picture. So to pull this apart as an individual case and conjecture about what I would do, I just don't think that's a fair question that I can answer.
Q. But I believe you've actually already said that each of these incidents would merit some -- could potentially merit termination?
A. No. I said it could warrant dismissal, not -- I'm sorry. It could warrant discipline.
Q. But not termination?
A. Not in and of themselves necessarily.
Q. Okay.
A. I don't think -- I think I keep getting twisted around in my testimony.
Q. So the testimony now is that each of these incidents separated out would not warrant termination; it's only by the fact that they're combined together in this series, you called bites of the apple, that you're recommending termination?
A. You're asking me to conjecture about each of these in and of itself when it wasn't in and of itself. My recommendation for dismissal to the superintendent was based on all of these incidents. As you can see, we didn't discipline -- we didn't terminate on each of these as they happened. We didn't do it. But we did when we looked at a whole and how many times he had been told. That's the fact. I'm conjecturing if you want me to take it apart piece by piece, because that isn't life and that isn't what happened.
MR. SMITH: I think we're kind of stuck in a rut here.
MR. DOYLE: We'll move on.
MR. SMITH: Okay.
BY MR. DOYLE:
Q. I just want to ask about your investigation. You made a comment that you probably should have done more investigation or would have done --
A. If it was singular.
Q. -- into the Jordan allegation.
A. If it was a standalone and that's what I was going to base my termination on, that one incident
only, and you both sat there and gave us nothing else to investigate, I probably would have looked -- if I was going to sit here and defend it, I probably would have looked a little bit more if it was the only incident that I was bringing forward on termination.
Q. For instance, talking to the witness that Ms. Jordan mentioned in her statement?
A. I believe that was done.
Q. Can you point to me in the October 2003 letter what directive Mr. Bellairs violated on January 14, 2004?
MR. SMITH: Do you have the exhibit number?
MR. DOYLE: I will get to the exhibit number. I was stalling. D-18.
THE WITNESS: Bottom of page 2: "You are officially instructed, Donald, to comply with Standards 2.2 c., 2.3 a. and e., and 3.2 e. and f. For standard 3.2f. you are instructed to first communicate with me any concerns you have with staff and/or parents so that letters or e-mails are appropriate. In addition you are instructed to see your immediate supervisor, Mike Chamberlain, when you have a potential conflict with a staff member or parent."
BY MR. DOYLE:
Q. Okay. You say he violated what part of that statement?
A. Specifically the last part, the potential conflict with the parent. Mrs. Hogue was a parent. Mr. Hogue was a parent.
Q. So there's three sentences there. The second sentence says for Standard 3.2 f., and that looks like it relates to letters or e-mails. You don't allege that on January 14, 2004, Mr. Bellairs sent a letter or e-mail that violated this order, do you?
A. No. Not that I'm aware of.
Q. So it's the next sentence: You are instructed to first see your immediate supervisor when you have potential conflict with a staff member or parent?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. What is a potential conflict?
A. Something that you disagree with that they've done that you're going to spout off about or display publicly or talk about in a derogatory fashion.
Q. So a potential conflict to you includes saying something about a parent -- sorry -- saying something about that -- I guess mentioning a student in general or saying something derogatory about a student?
A. Well, in this particular case it is that there was a picture, I understand, in the newspaper with this particular student, and it was insinuated that this student only got the part in the play because of her parents' influence and support of the school district. Then there's some offhanded comment that was, Well, maybe she deserved it, maybe she got it anyway, or something like that. But it was a direct derogatory comment about a family and that their family somehow got it through other than the merits of the daughter.
Q. You consider that to be a conflict with a parent?
A. I sure would if my family were portrayed in that manner that they were getting special treatment because of something that I did.
Q. Were there any parents at this meeting? I mean other than people who are faculty and also parents.
A. Not that I'm aware of.
Q. Okay. So I believe there are some notes on Exhibit D-21 from that faculty meeting. Now, I assume it was based upon these notes that you have an
understanding
of what was said?
A. No. Actually, I talked to Mike Chamberlain.
Q. You weren't actually at the faculty meeting?
A. I was not.
Q. Did you review these notes in addition to talking with Mr. Chamberlain?
A. Yes.
Q. Is the statement that you believe violated that directive written down here on these notes?
A. (Reviewing document.) It's the last statement. Well, it's actually the last couple statements. Kaitlyn Hogue, which is a student -- was a student at the school. And who knows, she may have -- it's in quotes what Don said was, "And who knows, she may have deserved the part in the fall play," which insinuated she may have gotten it by other means other than by her own actions. And then the, "Clearly making a connection to Mr. Hogue speaking to the faculty about fundraising, his wife as president of BEF, the equity concern regarding where dollars raised
go, and their daughter getting a lead in the fall play."
Q. Okay. Now, I see one statement there that's in quotes: "And who knows, she may have deserved the part in the fall play." That's the only quote in here; right? It looks like it's Mr. Chamberlains thoughts on what was --
A. I think it's an accurate reflection of what he heard.
Q. Did Mr. Chamberlain relay to you any other quotes or anything like that of what Mr. Bellairs said that you regard as a violation of the October directive?
A. Not in terms of quotes. He relayed what he said, but did not put anything in quotes other than that one thing.
Q. What else did Mr. Chamberlain tell you besides what's in these notes?
A. Basically these notes.
Q. Okay. So there's nothing else Mr. Chamberlain told you that you based your termination recommendation on than what's in these notes?
A. And the fact -- the reminder that he had talked to Mr. Bellairs specifically, and I have talked to Mr. Bellairs specifically about letting the Hogue stuff rest. That was October 17th. That was right after the October 16th letter. So both of us had talked to him specifically about the Hogues and specifically about not defaming kids in a public meeting or in a public forum or any kind of forum.
Q. Okay. So, once again, I'm just trying to make sure that I understand that the only statement --verbatim statement that you know of that Mr. Bellairs actually said is, "And who knows, she may have deserved the part in the fall play"?
A. The only verbatim, but certainly relaying the conversation that was -- this other information that was shared.
Q. Mr. Chamberlain gave you the gist?
A. It was more than the gist. I mean, he relayed the conversation to me. The only -- there's a
difference between a quote -- if I put down a quote, I'm saying absolutely exactly what the person said.
Q. To make sure it's accurate?
A. Well, and then I may have information that I relay about a conversation that is going to be absolutely 100 percent accurate, but I may not put it in that person's exact words. There is a difference between a quote and being relayed in the conversation. To me a quote is exactly what the person said. Relaying the conversation would be accurate information, but it's not done with the exact same language that the person used.
Q. So it's important -- I assume that the exact language -- it sounds like this was a statement that you regarded as having a lot of implication, that he was -- Mr. Chamberlain was making a connection, clearly making a connection between the equity concerns and the part in the school play. That takes a certain amount of interpretation. It might be obvious to Mr. Chamberlain, but it's not clear from what's written down in terms of the quote. So are you relying upon Mr. Chamberlain's understanding of what Mr. Bellairs said to recommend your termination?
A. No. I mean, not -- again, you're trying to isolate a sole, little tiny piece of the whole puzzle. This was certainly one of many, many, many things that we talked about in terms of the termination. In this particular incident I listened very carefully to what Mr. Chamberlain relayed to Ms. Lekas and myself about what took place on January 14th. So, you know, I am relying on his very honest and accurate information of what went on in the meeting.
Q. Do you remember anything about the superintendent expressing any concerns to you about what Mr. Bellairs said in that meeting?
A. No. In fact, he was pretty oblivious to who Mr. Bellairs was. I had no conversation with Mr. Colonna about this until we got ready for the dismissal. He did not come back and share any concerns he had because, like he said, there were people that were very vocal. We invite that. We want our employees to feel an open, free relationship with us, to tell us things. So this was only because it was a violation of the October 16th memo.
Q. Okay. And so Superintendent Colonna didn't see anything -- didn't find Mr. Bellairs' comments inappropriate?
A. I don't know. I haven't asked him that question.
Q. Do you know of anyone that found Mr. Bellairs' comments inappropriate on January 14th?
A. Yes.
Q. Inappropriate because they're violating the directive or inappropriate because they're just inappropriate?
A. Inappropriate for violating the directive.
Q. So no one actually found them inappropriate that was there that didn't know about the directive?
A. I don't know. Nobody said anything to me. That didn't mean people wouldn't think it was inappropriate.
Q. No one that you know?
A. No one came and told me.
Q. No one you know of. You haven't been told about anyone that found the comments inappropriate that didn't already know about this directive?
A. Nobody came and reported that Mr. Bellairs said anything that was egregious and what was the district going to do about it. No.
Q. Did you hear about any other teachers who made comments about students and parents during this same faculty meeting?
A. Not individual people.
Q. So you didn't hear that others teachers also made comments about specific students and parents?
Q. But there's no comments specifically about a student in that?
A. I consider ESL students, but they weren't -- you're asking --
Q. By name?
A. By name? No. There was not.
Q. All right. So then --
A. But I don't believe also that Mr. Bellairs used the student by name. But anybody who knew the newspaper and knew who the BEF president was, knew who was doing the fundraising. It would be easy to make that connection.
Q. Mr. Bellairs didn't actually use the student's name either?
A. Right.
Q. Okay. So Mr. Bellairs didn't use the student's name, and there was no one there -- no parents there, the parent of the student wasn't there?

Borquist's son Jeff in Westview High School Media Studies class December 2003

Borquist's son Jeff in Westview High School Media Studies class December 2003

Letter from BSD School Board member LeeAnn Larsen verifying Jeff Borquist's work in Media Studies

Letter from BSD School Board member LeeAnn Larsen verifying Jeff Borquist's work in Media Studies; BSD's former lawyer, Nancy Hungerford, and the OEA attorney, Tom Doyle, allowed Borquist to avoid acknowledging that her son Jeff had taken three years of elective classes with the teacher who was losing his job.

Gail Vangorder, former Westview administrator

Gail Vangorder, former Meadow Park Middle and Westview High administrator. Vangorder convinced longtime employee Jennifer Jordan to sign a complaint against OEA member to conceal Vangorder's misconduct and to avenge member's report to new superintendent about her failure to do state-required observations and evaluations. Vangorder, who was the librarian in the BSD administrative headquarters before becoming a school asst. principal.

Vangorder's 2000 email to OEA member/new teacher at Westview...

Vangorder's 2000 email to OEA member/new teacher at Westview...informing him that Jennifer Jordan, Westview High School librarian, and Mike Ali, recent Westview H.S. grad working as technology director, had her permission to remove equipment from the media classroom without notifying teacher, effectively sabotaging his ability to hold kids accountable for work with technology equipment.

This is an email from an administrator to a teacher, informing him that equipment...

This is an directive from an administrator to an experienced teacher that equipment used by media students can be removed without notification by her personnel. Vangorder 's directive effectively sabotages planning and student accountability.

2001-2002 Westview teacher evaluation

2001-2002 Westview teacher evaluation. Principal Len Case, asst. principal Chris Bick and OEA member all sign on the same day...

Janet Hogue, then director of the Beaverton Education Foundation, signs as BSD "superintendent."

Janet Hogue, then director of the Beaverton Education Foundation, signs as BSD "superintendent." Hogue, also chairwoman of Westview Building Use committee, fraudulently covers for former Westview asst. principal Lynn Blair-Thomas (see illegible signature) who had submitted tardy document to district office.

Vangorder writes discipline report on teacher about treatment of student who WILL NEVER TESTIFY

Moving receipts from June 2003 period proving teacher's out-of-state location

Evidence for missed meeting: Cross country travel receipts...

Mike Chamberlain, then-new Westview asst. principal

Mike Chamberlain, then-new Westview asst. principal...Chamberlain was assigned as teacher's supervisor and, after working at Westview High for less than four months, provided false testimony at FDAB hearing about teacher's failure to turn in first semester (2003-04) grades. Chamberlain was subsequently promoted to principal at a Beaverton middle school for his contribution and now serves as the principal at Westview High School.

October 2003 disciplinary document by Mike Chamberlain, after serving two months at Westview HS

October 2003 disciplinary document by Mike Chamberlain, after serving two months at Westview HS. Chamberlain, less than ten weeks into his new job, follows instructions to pad teacher's file; writes up experienced technology/ Language Arts teacher for...emails...

Hollis Lekas January 26, 2004 termination notes

Hollis Lekas' January 26, 2004 termination notes. Lekas met in her office with four others present: the teacher, asst. principal Mike Chamberlain, then-principal Malcolm Dennis and OEA uniserve rep Tom Husted, who had been contacted by Lekas, not the OEA member. The teacher was locked out of his work place the day BEFORE semester grades were due...and three days later, Lekas fired him again...for neglecting that "duty." This time, OEA lawyer Tom Doyle was present.

Lekas' notes reference the teacher's concerns about the dismissal of Westview's only black and deaf teachers.

Jerome Colonna, new Beaverton supt., signs termination document February 2004. Colonna, according to Borquist's FDAB testimony, did not know teacher and followed directions of former BSD lawyer Nancy Hungerford in violating employment contract mid-year.

2003 Westview HS Parents' Night for 9th grade lit/comp class.

2003 Westview HS Parents' Night for 9th grade lit/comp class: An example of the teacher's professionalism to contrast with the defensive and unfocused rambling in associate superintendent Borquist's' testimony.

BSD administrator Hollis Lekas reports teacher to FDAB Feb 2004

OEA lawyer Tom Doyle communicates with Hollis Lekas, BSD administrator. Letter refers to an initial list of four allegations, a list which will grow longer for the purposes of the FDAB hearing and will change again several times while the TSPC director harasses teacher to sign "stipulations" to undocumented, uninvestigated charges.

Mike Chamberlain's note to Lekas about Westview High School semester grades...

Mike Chamberlain's note to Lekas about Westview High School semester grades......due the day AFTER Lekas and Chamberlain locked teacher out of his place of work and directed him to have no contact with any Beaverton employees. BEA rep Husted was present at this meeting but was not called to testify after this charge was added to the list-- to cover Lekas' ineptitude in not asking about the grades and to further discredit teacher with graduating students he had taught since the sixth grade.

OEA attorney Tom Doyle informs Lekas of federal law suit

OEA attorney Tom Doyle informs Lekas of federal law suit. Doyle files million dollar "freedom of speech' law suit to manipulate OEA member and distract from real reasons for violation of contract.

First of many emails from OEA member to Doyle expressing frustration and concern...

First of many emails from OEA member to Doyle expressing frustration and concern...

July 2004 letter from TPSC director to Lekas

July 2004 letter from TPSC director to Lekas...referencing receipt of Beaverton's complaint against teacher, filed by Lekas in violaiton of OAR's governing teacher discipline.

July 2004 letter to Westview staff from Malcolm Dennis, principal

July 2004 letter to Westview staff from Malcolm Dennis, principal...announcing upcoming "systems audit" by Kathy Leslie, former BSD adminstrator now working as private consultant. Systems Audit is used by BSD administrators ot conceal misconduct in techer terminaiton. When Borquist was fored to resign the following year, she would go to work with Leslie Consultants.

Beginning of many delays in FDAB appeal that would be used to manipulate teacher

Beginning of many delays in FDAB appeal that would be used to manipulate teacher.

Susan Nisbet, former TSPC investigator was fired for misconduct in investigation

Susan Nisbet, former TSPC investigator was fired for misconduct in investigation. Her "investigation" began almost a year after the teacher's termination and consisted, according to Nisbet's own testimony, entirely of phone calls to former BSD associate supt. Linda Borquist.

September 2004 letter from Nisbet to OEA member announcing beginning of TSPC "investigation"

September 2004 letter from Nisbet to OEA member announcing beginning of TSPC "investigation"...nine months after termination...

Handwritten letter from OEA member to OEA attorney Tom Doyle...

Handwritten letter from OEA member to OEA attorney Tom Doyle...expressing growing frustration and skepticism at manipulative and deceitful advocacy.

October 2004 secrecy agreement in forced resignation of Malcolm Dennis

October 2004 secrecy agreement in forced resignation of Malcolm Dennis. Dennis would be deposed but not scheduled to testify in federal law suit that Doyle was using to manipulate teacher.

The exposure of this secret agreement would cause BSD school board members to force Borquist to resign the following year.

Documentation of current BSD school board member Leeann Larsen, who volunteered in media classes

Documentation of current BSD school board member Leeann Larsen, who volunteered in media classes. Larsen, whose son was taking media classes when teacher was fired, mentions presence of Borquist's son Jeff in the media studio, information that was kept from the FDAB panel by Nancy Hungerford, former BSD lawyer, and Tom Doyle, OEA attorney representing terminated teacher..

2003 media class project by Linda Borquist's son Jeff

October 2004 letter of frustraiton to BEA uniserve rep Tom Husted

October 2004 letter of frustraiton to BEA uniserve rep Tom Husted...who was serving on the board of Beaverton Education Foundation director Hogue, who was sharing an office with Borquist and Lekas in the BSD HR bldg. Cozy HR/union relationship built by the BEF lady?

Husted was able to avoid testifying on behalf of member who paid his salary.

November 2004 letter from Doyle to Jennifer Hungerford

November 2004 letter from Doyle to Jennifer Hungerford...announcing second of several delays in FDAB appeal, as well as the impending depositions of Jerome Colonna, Mike Chamberlain and Malcolm Dennis in million-dollar "freedom of speech" law suit in U.S District Court.

Copy of Dennis' deposition, in which he admits he was fired for being drunk at work

Copy of former Westview principal Malcolm Dennis' deposition, in which he admits he was fired for being drunk at work

January 2005 fax from TSPC's Nisbet, with prearranged "stipulations" for teacher to sign

List of marked-up stipulations designed to deny teacher due process of law

List of marked-up stipulations designed to deny teacher due process of law ihe TSPC was using these stipulations to conceal the manipulative conduct of OEA attorney Doyle and BSD attorney Hungerford, who was being paid (education $) to protect Beaverton administrators who had violated the conditions of the teacher's employment contract.

Nisbet's plea to OEA attorney Doyle

Nisbet's plea to OEA attorney Doyle...after the teacher refused to sign four different versions of these stipulations because there was no documentation and no testimony beyond hearsay commentary by BSD administrators.

January 2005 announcement of first scheduled hearing for TSPC charges as provided for by OAR's

January 2005 announcement of first scheduled hearing for TSPC charges as provided for by OAR's...a process that did not end for 3 years later, when a "first of it's kind in Oregon" decision by ALJ Andrea Sloan slanted the results of a federal law suit in favor of Beaverton's attorney, Nancy Hungerford.

February 2005 email from TSPC's Chamberlain to Doyle, urging signature on stipulations

February 2005 email from TSPC's Chamberlain to Doyle, urging signature on stipulations.

March 2005 letter from TSPC's Chamberlain to teacher

March 2005 letter from TSPC's Chamberlain to teacher...announcing teacher's right to OAH hearing as provided for by OAR's dated fourteen months after teacher's termination).

Letter from BSD attorney Hungerford to ALJ Sandoval, who decided for teacher in unemployment claim.

Letter from BSD attorney Hungerford to ALJ Sandoval, who decided for teacher in unemployment claim. The BSD filed three separate challenges to teacher's claim--the last hearing was three days after teacher's mother's funeral. The BSD lost all three appeals--ALJ Sandoval found the teacher was fired without just cause.

April 2005 Linda Borquist is questioned by teacher in unemployment hearing

April 2005 Linda Borquist is questioned by teacher in unemployment hearing. The teacher represented himself...and won...three times. The following testimony was given by Linda Borquist as she was questioned by the teacher she had fired. The hearing occured three days after his mother's funeral.

July 2005 OAH hearing NOW scheduled with ALJ Andrea Sloan

July 2005 OAH hearing NOW scheduled with ALJ Andrea Sloan. This will be the first of several scheduled hearings that are postponed as TSPC officials seek to coerce teacher to sign stipulations to undocumented allegations.

January 2006 email from Doyle informing teacher that ALJ Sloan has cancelled January hearing

January 2006 email from Doyle informing teacher that ALJ Sloan has cancelled January hearing...to consider Denecke's motion on behalf of TSPC director Chamberlain that teacher not be allowed to contest charges TSPC has filed against him.

January email from teacher to OEA atty Tom Doyle, reacting to TSPC's support of BSD administrators

ALJ Andrea Sloan's "first of its kind" ruling in violation of teacher's right to due process

ALJ Andrea Sloan's "first of its kind" ruling in violation of teacher's right to due process...publicly discrediting OEA member. On file with Oregon Office of Administrative Hearings.

January 2006 email from Doyle explaining "first of its kind" ruling against teacher

January 2006 email from Doyle explaining "first of its kind" ruling against teacher. In breach of trust, OEA lawyer Tom Doyle conspires with lawyers employed by state government: "FIRST OF ITS KIND IN OREGON" legal manuever allows TSPC director Chamberlain to abuse her authority punitively. She influences teacher's ongoing civil litigation, in which he opposes BSD attorney Nancy Hungerford, her frequent advisor.

February 2006 handwritten note toOEA atty Tom Doyle instructing him to "take no further action"

February 2006 handwritten note toOEA atty Tom Doyle instructing him to "take no further action." Note is signed and dated by Jessica Newell, receptionist for Bennett Hartman law firm.

March 2006 coercive emails from OEA Tom Doyle

March 2006 coercive emails from OEA Tom Doyle...giving teacher less than 24 hours notice that he must participate in an "alternative dispute resolution" process arranged by Nancy Hungerford to resolve pending civil suit or face contempt of court charges.

October 2006 letter from new BSD HR chief Sue Robertson

October 2006 response to new BSD HR director Sue Robertson

October 2006 response to new BSD HR director Sue Robertson

Notes for October 2006 meeting with OEA advocacy director Mark Toledo

Notes for October 2006 meeting with OEA advocacy director Mark Toledo...asking for legitimate legal advocacy and support. The teacher had been a dues-paying member of the OEA for nine and a half years.

October 2006 letter to ALJ John M. Mann

October 2006 letter to ALJ John M. Mann...expressing disbelief that teacher's case has been decided and he will not be allowed to call Craig Crandall and other witnesses on list sent a year and half earlier to ALJ Sloan

November 2006 TSPC prehearing scheduled.

November 2006 TSPC prehearing scheduled.

November 28 2006 OAH hearing with ALJ John Mann takes place in Beaverton

November 28 2006 OAH hearing with ALJ John Mann takes place in Beaverton. Teacher is informed that he may not call rebuttal witnesses--that ALJ Sloan has accepted "certain facts as true" from June 2004 FDAB testimony of Linda Borquist (resigned), Gail Vangorder (resigned), Malcolm Dennis (resigned), Mike Chamberlain (promoted) and Hollis Lekas (transferred). The TSPC's only witness is Susan Nisbet (fired). Teacher's wife and father are in attendence. He is not allowed to call witnesses as prvided for in OAR's covering teacher disciplinary cases.

In response to my request for a document freeing me from any financial responsibility to you, you have asked me to cover costs of preparation for the civil suit.

Public documents indicate my case against the Beaverton School District was settled in March 2006. I am under the impression that you have held my check for almost a year. You have withheld the settlement money to attempt to force me to sign stipulations for the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission. I have refused to do that and have been deprived of what is legally mine.

I recently defended myself in the TSPC matter, three years after I was fired. This was what you were once hired to do.

I trusted you. My mother was dying.

Please send my check and the document I requested immediately. If you feel you are owed something for your work on the civil suit, you should bill someone who has benefited by it.

When I receive my check and the release document, that will end our need to communicate further.

Don Bellairs

April 2007 letter from OEA president Larry Wolf

June 2007 letter from David Gerstenfeld, OAH presiding judge

June 2007 letter from David Gerstenfeld, OAH presiding judge, responding to teacher's request for explanation of length of ordeal and "first of its kind in Oregon" finding. Gerstenfeld explains teacher was represented in his absence at ALJ Sloans hearing by OEA attorney Tom Doyle.

August 2007 TSPC director Chamberlain's "Final Order"

August 2007 TSPC director Chamberlain's "Final Order." Three and 1/2 half years after termination. Doyle and BSD (former) attorney Hungerford are withholding civil settlement to coerce signature of TSPC stipulations...

October 2007 letter from (former) BSD attorney Hungerford to Judge Robert E. Jones

October 2007 letter from (former) BSD attorney Hungerford to U.S District Judge Robert E. Jones. Hungerford has intentionally misled Judge Jones about earlier settlement of civil suit and if further concealing her firm's collaberation with TSPC director Vickie Chamberlain to damage teacher's chance for success in federal court.

Governor,We in Oregon are suffering from our naïve presumption that public school officials are acting with integrity. The Oregonian, the NW's largest newspaper, is complicit in our affliction. I suspect a well-connected school district administrator with a COSA pedigree could abuse just about anybody in his/her district without fear of union retaliation. Actually, it is more than suspicion; I know that the system that exists today is demeaning to Oregon's classroom teachers and allows administrators to avoid accountability for their conduct with the taxpayers' money.

I continue to be punished for asking to be treated fairly by people who were cheating the system. When Jerome Colonna, Beaverton superintendent, acknowledges the authentic circumstances surrounding my termination from Beaverton Schools, as well as his personal involvement in the subsequent years of harassment by Beaverton's lawyers and the director of the teacher licensing agency, Vickie Chamberlain, I will achieve a sense of justice and peace of mind.

On the day when I was fired by sneak attack, I was locked out of my building and told to have no contact with anyone associated with the BSD. My students, some seniors with whom I had been working since their sixth grade year, were told I had intentionally sabotaged their early college admissions and scholarship opportunities, even though Mike Chamberlain (then a new assistant; now Westivew's principal) would later testify that he didn't use any of my grades that semester anyway—he made them all up.

From January to June that year, I waited at home silently. My union lawyer had convinced me to file a million-dollar freedom-of-speech suit instead of publicly seeking community support. At spring break I received a notice saying my termination (Fair Dismissal Appeals Board) hearing would be postponed until mid-June, after the school year was over, because the Beaverton HR director was vacationing in Morocco during spring break. All scheduling was done by the BSD lawyers.

That same HR director testified about my inability to work with students in June for three days without ever being asked by my union lawyer (with whom she was well-acquainted) about my extensive work with her son. Never a question. When I mentioned it under oath, the Beaverton lawyer (Nancy Hungerford) called me a liar. I kept hoping my union lawyer would produce some easily-accessed documentation to prove my testimony, but he didn't think it was necessary, I guess.

I lost that hearing—but they did throw out the unwarranted sexual harassment. Even the FDAB panel (my "judges" were a teacher and two principals chosen by the lawyers) had to admit that was a trumped-up phony charge.

But, after six months, the damage was done.

Somehow the BSD lawyers managed to “find” that I had taken a seventh-grader out to the school parking lot inappropriately some five years prior to my dismissal. They didn't have anyone testify about that and there have never been any documents. It was a shameless effort to paint an entirely different conflict (long resolved) with a sexual tint. David Anderson of the Oregonian did his part for the Beaverton administration—he wrote about that finding in the paper; he still has never spoken to me about it—and the TSPC director attempted for THREE YEARS to get me to stipulate to that allegation, among others.

Meanwhile, I was being manipulated by the million-dollar civil suit (it was my “best remedy,” said the OEA lawyers) so that Beaverton's lawyers were able to access my medical and financial records...

Employees from the state of Oregon helped Beaverton's lawyers and my own lawyer harass me for a long time in an effort to coerce me into signing a confession. I ultimatedly signed a settlement for the civil suit (reduced from $1,000,000 to $40,000 because Beaveton's attorneys were threatening to tell people that I have smoked pot) and waited two years for the settlement money which the BSD lawyer withheld while the TSPC director tried, unsuccessfully, to get the stipulations signed.

I still haven't stipulated to those false charges. Ms Chamberlain was able to get a state ALJ to “accept as true” certain “facts” from the FDAB hearing; she then suspended my license for six months, three and a half years after I was fired. She wants me to report to her about the progress of my anger management therapy that she has decreed be a condition of my re-licensing.

To paraphrase Norman Mailer, that's like being required to go to your rapist for treatment of the ensuing venereal disease.

I am being charged falsely by people who deserve public scrutiny. The people who have flaunted the rules and blatantly demeaned me and damaged my reputation are apparently all beyond accountability. I still can't get state administrators to comment on Ms. Chamberlain's limitless powers over educators, including the ability to create her own rules, even if she has to use her office to meddle with federal lawsuits. I still can't get the OEA leadership to comment on an investigation of the treatment I received at the hands of a union lawyer whom teachers paid over $60,000 to humiliate and manipulate me.

And then there's Jerry Colonna. I continue to suffer because of his leadership failure. His ability to influence the conduct of the TSPC director (perhaps related to the fact that he was one of those who voted to HIRE her in 2002) has caused me to be blacklisted from my profession. I can't teach because of a list of false charges that Colonna was given to sign in 2004.

Four years of abuse by the system. All I had done was ask to be paid fairly and treated with respect. My mother was dying and I had asked if I could quit, Instead, they talked the librarian into signing a complaint and smeared my name in the newspaper. Tough job, teaching in Beaverton back then. Still is, apparently.

I accept that I am a fallible human being and that I had several conflicts with some Beaverton administrators. I do not believe that I was wrong in standing up for my rights...and by extension, the rights of the children whom I taught.

I would like to correct the record in state documents that now misrepresents my work in Beaverton and is currently published on state websites. Soon.

Accountability and oversight. Without those things, "reform" is an empty word used by politicians to steal from the future.